Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
Steele’s argument is utterly correct. More marriages would mean that more benefits would be paid out. However, it’s still ridiculous because the exact same argument could be used against all marriages. And if you think about it, because heterosexual marriages would more likely lead to children, which would lead to more benefits, heterosexual marriages would actually be worse for businesses than gay marriages!
Does Steele and the GOP really want to be against the institution of marriage? Will Steele call for a moratorium on all new marriages until the financial crisis is over?
But wait, it gets even more bizarre, if you continue with Steele’s logic, it necessarily follows that unmarried gay couples are good for small businesses! So not only he is against the institution of marriage, he’s in favor of promiscuous homosexuality!
#126 – Named,
Thanks for your vote of confidence in my genes. Thus far, they have only gotten as far as blogging for better memes. If one’s genes are so great that they can solve the problems of the world, they should be able to do so in this generation. No need to wait for the next.
As for other methods of population control, certainly war and famine work as does the increased spread of disease from increased population.
I think that not breeding might accomplish the job with a lot less pain and suffering though, no?
Mr. Fusion,
Actually, I think a sustainable human population on this planet would be fewer than 300 million people, possibly far fewer. And, I would not be opposed to peaceful and voluntary removal of our species from the planet. I am actually a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, emphasis on voluntary.
130,
When did I say government should exclude certain types of couples? Oh yeah… never.
Increase in population / taxpayers is a good thing for governments. Your government generally encourages a liberal style of freedom. You can bone your wife without getting her pregnant legally since you’re not a theocratic nation (yet!).
I’m thinking you’re confused about my intents here… Governments live on taxes, nothing more. Nothing makes more taxpayers like couples starting families. I don’t care WHAT kind of couples and HOW they get children. The other way governments get taxpayers is immigration. Governments really like tax revenues. Did I mention that? Encouraging couples to have children is good for the tax base. No idea why this fails the “logic” test.
#131
Actually, it is not cheaper to society to have everyone grow their own food. Specialization creates efficiencies in production. The opportunity cost of having a nuclear physicist plowing a field is enormous.
Yes, the more people in society the more resources that are consumed, however it is also the case that the more resources that are produced. As long as the output of each additional person exceeds the benefit of the resources they consume, in general, it is still a net gain for society (Marginal benefit over marginal cost). I’m saying this from a general economic standpoint not a specific policy standpoint. I don’t know that anyone is willing to allow any government to decide when we’ve past that point and frankly economics really manages this problem for us. As societies increase their standard of living, the cost to have children goes up and people have less children. In poorer societies, the benefit of children far exceeds their cost especially if that society is providing quite a bit of welfare.
#133
I disagree that 300 million is the cap of sustainability. It ignores advances in technology and thus our ability to live off less. NY shouldn’t be able to sustain 18 million people in the greater Manhattan area and yet it does. It is difficult to even consider a cap across the entire globe as some areas are able to sustain more people, some less and for different periods of time. The number of people that can be sustained at the North Pole is obviously different than the number that be sustained in Mexico City.
You last statement reminds me of the TOS Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon” where two societies were fighting their war by computer. When a hit was registered, people would voluntarily walk into disintegration chambers. If you are all for VHE, then you should love what we’ve done in Iraq. ;->
#134
> When did I say government
> should exclude certain
> types of couples? Oh yeah…
> never.
Then by that statement, I conclude that you endorse gay marriage for the same reason you endorse conferring benefits on any other type of couple: it encourages the creation of more taxpayers. If that is the case, then yes your logic is sound. I was under the impression that you were arguing against gay marriage but for government benefits to heterosexual couples. My apologies.
#135 – Thomas,
Economics would cure a lot of ills for us if it actually accounted for the costs of natural resources. Since it doesn’t, we can’t rely on economics for anything. Top soil has no value. Underground aquifers have no value. Even forests have no value.
They have value only when we put a fence around them, cut them down, dig them up, or otherwise produce a product from them. This is a failed system. The only result can be tragedy of the commons.
NYC does not support 18 million people. It does so for the moment because we are stealing from our children to feed ourselves. We are not living sustainably now by any measure.
We are depleting our topsoil. We are depleting our underground aquifers. We are depleting the ocean of its fish. We’re eating petroleum, literally, and it is a limited non-renewable resource. *
Advances in technology will not replace the ocean fish, the topsoil, or the ground water.
Already, we have been getting less fish out of the ocean year over year since the 1980s, despite improved fishing technology.
Already, we are producing a lower and lower surplus of grain year over year to the point that we now have shorter than a 90 day supply as of the last article I read on the subject.
Already, huge tracts of land have become deserts because we have depleted their topsoil and water supply.
Our lifestyle is already far from sustainable at this point, partially because our economics is based on the GDP that does not count natural resources as assets.
Malthus made two mistakes, IMHO. One, he overestimated the number of people the planet could sustain. Two, he underestimated the degree to which we would be willing to steal our children’s food.
* We literally eat petroleum in that our industrial fertilizer is petroleum based. We literally eat petroleum in our corn and wheat. In addition, we use petroleum to transport all of the food.
Named,
I think you were asked what you think governments ought to encourage, as representatives of their people.
You have repeatedly responded with what governments actually do based on the selfish motives of politicians.
Do you believe that politicians should have their own selfish profit motives above the interests of the people they claim to represent?
I agree that they do have their own profit incentive above our well-being. I do not believe they should.
What do you believe?
136,
Glad I cleared that up for you. I’m all for inter-species “marriage”.
138
“I agree that they do have their own profit incentive above our well-being. I do not believe they should.”
I agree with that.
Named,
In general you make good arguments, but I still differ on your insistence that government only see people as a tax base.
By our democratic process, WE govern ourselves. The purpose of any government is stability and progress. The way we get there is using taxes to pay for that.
Of course, if you live in a country where you don’t get a chance to elect your own officials, …
141,
I love government. Its the most advanced form of society. And one in which our voices are heard, while debatable in practice, is truly a powerful human development.
In terms of this topic, gay marriage hurting small businesses, I was shocked that people forget, or forgot, that government is run by taxpayers, and these taxpayers need to be replenished. And a lot of marriage related government tax credits are to facilitate children rearing. Its only logical. But, I’m not so naive as to believe that government is strictly to do that; grow the base. Now, that doesn’t mean you HAVE to have children or course.
Named,
What about the taxes paid on the $3.1 billion industry that will be sparked by the increase in marriages?
Why would you or a politician not want to take advantage of taxing the existing base of humans?
(See post #40)
143,
There is very little we disagree on. When did I say government doesn’t like extra tax revenue? Let’s clarify some things: I don’t believe in marriage as a religious construct. I believe that couples of any human kind should be able to legally marry and enjoy the exact same rights as other couples. I believe that childless couples are as valid as couples with children. I believe that children can be procured by any legal means, including intercourse. On top of all that, I also believe governments enjoy tax revenues.
So… what is it we disagree on? You think we should cull the herd of humanity. I say it’s not necessary. A child in Niger consumes 1/1000th of a child in the US. In the US population growth is only occurring due to immigration. Therefore, consumption excess is the problem, and that problem is strictly in the US/West. It’s not a number of babies problem. It’s how much a US baby requires in comparison to 1000 children from Niger.
Dig? And if you think there are too many people, off yourself. You’ve already said that your genes aren’t good enough for anything other than meme digging, and you’re not going to try and create a human being better than yourself. What good are you? Don’t take it wrong, but if you’re not contributing now, and you can’t contribute to the future, AND you think that there are too many people… the answer is so clear, you’re just scared of the final solution.
But… don’t do it. I’d rather your useless carcass taking up space AND posting on the blog than just filling up land as worm food. Thoughts are like the wind… but with intelligent comments you might spur someone else to greater things. Socrates did it. Even if his city made him kill himself.
Named,
Even at the rates of consumption of Nigerians, there are simply not enough resources on the planet for the number of humans we have today.
And, remember, when people live in poverty, they breed like rabbits.
Technology is not going to make a new earth full of additional resources.
Technology is not going to allow humans to live without food. People are made of food … and we’re running out of it.
As for offing myself, sorry. I may do that when the time comes. Right now, I’m going to enjoy the one life I have to the best of my ability. I have done what I am willing to do to avoid furthering the blight on the biosphere that is humanity.
And, I won’t be taking up space in the ground as worm food either. I plan to get back into the food chain as quickly as possible, and preferably not as food for maggots.
What do we disagree on? At least two quite significant points:
1) You think it is OK for the government to act against the will of the people because they want more tax dollars. You said this was not true and then just went back to it in your last post.
2) You think that the planet is an infinite resource capable of sustaining an infinite number of humans. It should be obvious that this is false since we have measured the mass of the planet. But, that does not seem to convince you.
Oh … and you didn’t answer my question at all.
Did you read about the 3.1 billion dollar stimulus available for free simply by allowing same sex marriage?